Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Christaldo 12-06-04, 06:31 AM	When delivering this attack it says a melee weapon. But can the attacker have one weapon in both hands, for example two shortswords. The attacker can only attack once as a full round. It is important, if the attack is a failure and the victim survives I don't like this rule, but how do you practise this one. I'm very interested to know!
Nyferto 12-06-04, 07:22 AM	The Coup De Grace only works with one weapon, but you can try it with any weapon you wield. You can try it with either weapon but you'd get the TWF penalty as normal (if you wanted to use two and still have two ready afterwards).
kjenks 12-06-04, 09:23 AM	The Coup De Grace only works with one weapon, but you can try it with any weapon you wield. You can try it with either weapon but you'd get the TWF penalty as normal (if you wanted to use two and still have two ready afterwards). There wouldn't be a TWF penalty unless you use that second weapon to make an extra off-hand attack. For example, you have Dex 14 and Combat Reflexes, you're wielding an adamantine longsword and a silver shortsword in a chaotic battle with monsters running everywhere. You are performing a coup de grace on a werewolf lord, using your silver weapon of course. This requires a full-round action, so you're not attacking with two weapons (since that requires a full attack, incompatible with also taking a full-round action). While you are performing your coup de grace, an animated object moves past you, provoking an AoO. Naturally, you'd use your adamantine longsword. Then a werewolf moves past you, provoking another AoO. This time, you'd use your silver shortsword. Now another werewolf charges you and tries to disarm your silver shortsword. You don't take TWF penalties on any of your attack rolls, including the opposed attack roll to prevent your shortsword from being disarmed, because you weren't taking a full-round attack action and making an extra attack with your second weapon. Read the TWF rules carefully and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Thorak 12-06-04, 09:48 AM	There wouldn't be a TWF penalty unless you use that second weapon to make an extra off-hand attack. For example, you have Dex 14 and Combat Reflexes, you're wielding an adamantine longsword and a silver shortsword in a chaotic battle with monsters running everywhere. You are performing a coup de grace on a werewolf lord, using your silver weapon of course. This requires a full-round action, so you're not attacking with two weapons (since that requires a full attack, incompatible with also taking a full-round action). While you are performing your coup de grace, an animated object moves past you, provoking an AoO. Naturally, you'd use your adamantine longsword. Then a werewolf moves past you, provoking another AoO. This time, you'd use your silver shortsword. Now another werewolf charges you and tries to disarm your silver shortsword. You don't take TWF penalties on any of your attack rolls, including the opposed attack roll to prevent your shortsword from being disarmed, because you weren't taking a full-round attack action and making an extra attack with your second weapon. Read the TWF rules carefully and you'll see what I'm talking about. That's a very, very questionable interpretation. The line in question states "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard..." From that, it's impossible to tell if "fighting in this way" refers to "wield a second weapon in your off hand", or "get one extra attack per round with that weapon.", grammatically. It could be either. And once we acknowledge that, we see that there are problems if you assume it's the extra attack. For instance, take this scenario; Bob is fighting Joe. It is Bob's turn, and he is wielding a longsword and shortsword. We don't care about BAB or anything else. Start of Bob's action; Bob is going to use TWF, because he wants to carve Joe up. Bob swings, and misses by 1 point. Bob swings again with his longsword, and hits, and kills Joe. Now, he hasn't made an off-hand attack. So he shouldn't have taken the penalty that forced him to miss the first attack. And if he'd hit and killed Joe on that attack, he could choose to move or something. So, basically, assuming that you take the penalties only when you make the extra attack means that there will be times when you take penalties without, in fact, doing anything to deserve them. Why did Bob miss that first swing? There's a -2 penalty there, but nothing causing it. Unless you mean that the intent to make an extra attack is what causes the penalty. Which, I'll point out, is what is meant by "wield". You can hold a weapon and not be wielding it. You take the penalties if you're wielding both weapons, rather than choosing to concentrate on the primary weapon and only holding on to the off-hand one.
ClementWillowbreaker 12-06-04, 10:33 AM	The whole Coup de Grace with a single weapon is a thing our party rogue realized in the campaign's second battle- he could either get an automatic crit and single sneak attack, dealing 5d6 with his rapier, or he could TWF against a target whose AC is generally at Flatfooted-9 (-5 Dex for being helpless, and most of the time that means prone for another -4) and deal 4d6+1d4+3d6, and not provoke AoOs. The barbarians with maxed out Power Attack is just as messy. Bandit goo everywhere.
Nyferto 12-06-04, 11:49 AM	Well if he wanted to - he could do it that way, but there's no way out of the penalty unless you drop or unready the weapon prior to making the Coup de Grace. You have to suffer the penalties for wielding weapons everytime you make an attack with them, no mater how you use them. Even if you attack with only one weapon in a round, if you have an offhand weapon equiped you take the TWF penalties.
General Dorsey 12-06-04, 12:23 PM	You cannot perform a coup de grace with two weapons (or both ends of a double weapon for that matter). Here is the relevant information from the SRD: Under Full Round Actions: Full Attack If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones. The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks. If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first. Since a coup de grace is also a full round action, it cannot be done even if hasted. Note that you can choose which weapon you will use, but you cannot use both. If you had the feat Death Blow, you still would not be able to use both weapons as you cannot use a full-round and a standard action in the same round. You might allow it with haste (or similar ability), but that is the only way I can see it.
kjenks 12-06-04, 02:20 PM	That's a very, very questionable interpretation. The line in question states "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard..." From that, it's impossible to tell if "fighting in this way" refers to "wield a second weapon in your off hand", or "get one extra attack per round with that weapon.", grammatically. It could be either. And once we acknowledge that, we see that there are problems if you assume it's the extra attack. For instance, take this scenario; Bob is fighting Joe. It is Bob's turn, and he is wielding a longsword and shortsword. We don't care about BAB or anything else. Start of Bob's action; Bob is going to use TWF, because he wants to carve Joe up. Bob swings, and misses by 1 point. Bob swings again with his longsword, and hits, and kills Joe. Now, he hasn't made an off-hand attack. So he shouldn't have taken the penalty that forced him to miss the first attack. And if he'd hit and killed Joe on that attack, he could choose to move or something. So, basically, assuming that you take the penalties only when you make the extra attack means that there will be times when you take penalties without, in fact, doing anything to deserve them. Why did Bob miss that first swing? There's a -2 penalty there, but nothing causing it. Unless you mean that the intent to make an extra attack is what causes the penalty. Which, I'll point out, is what is meant by "wield". You can hold a weapon and not be wielding it. You take the penalties if you're wielding both weapons, rather than choosing to concentrate on the primary weapon and only holding on to the off-hand one. So that would mean that anybody who uses a shield in his off-hand would always take TWF penalties? Or anybody who has a spiked gauntlet, armor spikes, or even unarmed strike? I don't think that's how it works. Do you? It's not the intent to make an extra attack is what causes the penalty; it's declaring your fighting style at the beginning of the round -- where that declaration is necessary to determine what your penalties are. Sure, you get to see how each attack works out before making your next one, but for that -2 penalty (or more for some TWF combos) must be determined before making your first attack because it applies to all attacks that you make in that round -- including AoOs and opposed attack rolls (disarm, sunder, etc.) that you make when it's not your turn. For example, our adamantine longsword/silver shortsword wielder could declare TWF with the shortsword to be his primary weapon for the round so he gets iterative attacks with it, using the longsword as his off-hand weapon. Or the other way around. Or he could just swing the longsword, taking no TWF penalties, even though he still has the shortsword in his off-hand and can use it for AoOs. But either way, he's still wielding both weapons. The "fighting in this way" must apply to a full attack where you plan on using your off-hand weapon to make an extra attack, not just to situations when you're wielding two weapons. Two many creatures are constantly wielding two (or more) weapons without suffering TWF penalties on their single attack rolls. Check out the dagger attacks of the Drider in the SRD. Its single dagger attack is at +5. If it uses two weapons, its dagger attacks are both at +3. Now these critters probably don't have weapon belts or anywhere to stow that extra dagger, so they must be wielding two daggers most of the time, right? It's only when they make a full attack that the penalties apply -- and they get an extra attack with the second dagger.
Thorak 12-06-04, 08:44 PM	So that would mean that anybody who uses a shield in his off-hand would always take TWF penalties? Or anybody who has a spiked gauntlet, armor spikes, or even unarmed strike? I don't think that's how it works. Do you? Note that I said you can hold a weapon and not be wielding it. As is the case with anyone using a shield defensively. Or any of those other weapons. I suggest you read my whole post. It's not the intent to make an extra attack is what causes the penalty; it's declaring your fighting style at the beginning of the round -- where that declaration is necessary to determine what your penalties are. Sure, you get to see how each attack works out before making your next one, but for that -2 penalty (or more for some TWF combos) must be determined before making your first attack because it applies to all attacks that you make in that round -- including AoOs and opposed attack rolls (disarm, sunder, etc.) that you make when it's not your turn. I'm sorry, but "declare your fighting style" isn't what causes the penalties. It's either "wielding a second weapon in your off hand" or "making an extra attack". Though I suppose you could interpret the former as "declaring fighting style". My point was that it's not making the extra attack that triggers the penalties. For example, our adamantine longsword/silver shortsword wielder could declare TWF with the shortsword to be his primary weapon for the round so he gets iterative attacks with it, using the longsword as his off-hand weapon. Or the other way around. Or he could just swing the longsword, taking no TWF penalties, even though he still has the shortsword in his off-hand and can use it for AoOs. But either way, he's still wielding both weapons. Nope. For the same reason you're not wielding a shield when you're wearing it. I'll point out that you retain the shield bonus when unconscious. Meaning you get the bonus for wearing it, not for the active kind of use wielding implies. I'll also note that your off-hand is a specific, unchanging hand. You can't declare your shortsword to be the primary unless you're switching which weapon is in which hand. Unless you can tell me how you're changing which hand is "weaker or less dextrous" at will; see the Glossary for "off hand". The "fighting in this way" must apply to a full attack where you plan on using your off-hand weapon to make an extra attack, not just to situations when you're wielding two weapons. Two many creatures are constantly wielding two (or more) weapons without suffering TWF penalties on their single attack rolls. Why must it? You haven't provided any support for your interpretation of "wield", while I've shown that it doesn't apply in the case of shields, specifically. Not to mention, if I wanted to wield my crossbow for a single shot as an Attack action, but still threaten in melee should anyone close, I could use TWFing to wield a dagger or something in my off hand, even outside a full attack. I can't reload, obviously, but it's valid. Check out the dagger attacks of the Drider in the SRD. Its single dagger attack is at +5. If it uses two weapons, its dagger attacks are both at +3. Now these critters probably don't have weapon belts or anywhere to stow that extra dagger, so they must be wielding two daggers most of the time, right? It's only when they make a full attack that the penalties apply -- and they get an extra attack with the second dagger. Or when they decide to hold the second dagger and not 'wield' it that round. Wielding is an active thing. Dictionary.com, since the D&D books never define it, have the following definitions; "To handle (a weapon or tool, for example) with skill and ease. To use with full command or power, as a thing not too heavy for the holder; to manage; to handle; hence, to use or employ; as, to wield a sword; to wield the scepter. handle effectively; "The burglar wielded an axe"" Note the terms; "handle with skill and ease", "handle effectively", and "use or employ". Not merely "have in hand". It's an active term, not a passive one. Meaning you can passively be holding something and not be "wielding" it.
Obi-Wan Shinobi 12-07-04, 01:41 AM	what i think is even worse about coup-de-grace is the fact that you CANT use 2 weapons. if the critter is just standing there, not able to move or defend itself, i cant take both my daggers and stick him in the kidneys?? i cant use 2 daggers and cram them through the critters temples, with the blades meeting somewhere in between?? i cant crush the critters skull between my dual-weilded light maces?? seems kinda stupid to me. yeah it might make coup de grace REALLY overpowering (specially for rogues), but damn, sometimes you just gotta be able to have some real world mechanics creep into the game once in a while..
kjenks 12-07-04, 07:35 AM	Note that I said you can hold a weapon and not be wielding it. Is that in the rules somewhere or are you making it up?
Nyferto 12-07-04, 08:20 AM	No you can hold a longbow in one hand (or any two handed weapon in fact) and have the other free, but you couldn't then attack with that weapon.
Thorak 12-07-04, 08:24 AM	Is that in the rules somewhere or are you making it up? I suggest you look at the dictionary definitions I quoted. It's not in the rules, but the rules don't define "wielding", so we use the standard English meaning of the word. Which has active use implied in it's usage. So, technically, it's not in the rules of D&D. But it is in the basic rules of English grammar and vocabulary. D&D doesn't have to define every single term; it assumes you know what a lot of words actually mean. Like 'wield'. Which cannot be applied, correctly, to anything you're holding in your hand. Therefore, you can have something in hand and not be wielding it. No you can hold a longbow in one hand (or any two handed weapon in fact) and have the other free, but you couldn't then attack with that weapon. You can, however, wield a second weapon when wielding any two-handed weapon, provided it doesn't require a physical hand to wield it. The FAQ uses the example of a greatsword and armor spikes, but you can replace armor spikes with unarmed strikes (kicks and headbutts), or even blade boots if your DM uses them.
kjenks 12-07-04, 10:56 AM	So, technically, it's not in the rules of D&D. That's all you needed to say. You can, however, wield a second weapon when wielding any two-handed weapon, provided it doesn't require a physical hand to wield it. The FAQ uses the example of a greatsword and armor spikes, but you can replace armor spikes with unarmed strikes (kicks and headbutts), or even blade boots if your DM uses them. And so, if you're wielding a greatsword and armor spikes, do you always take those TWF penalties? Or are you "holding" the armor spikes and not wielding them? If you're a monk wielding a greatsword, do you always take TWF penalties? Or are you "holding" your unarmed strike and not wielding it? Do you see how inconsistent your position is? It's much more consistent to interpret the phrase "fighting this way" in the TWF rules as "when you make an extra attack with that off-hand weapon." This clears up the inconsistency and it doesn't send us to the dictionary to find out what the word "wield" means. And it doesn't make every monk take a TWF penalty whenever he uses a manufactured weapon.
Obi-Wan Shinobi 12-07-04, 12:11 PM	the way we play it is this... if at any time during your action you plan on using a weapon in your off hand, you have to declare it before you do anything. so lets say you are weilding 2 swords- 1 long sword and 1 short sword. at the beginning of your action, you have to decide wether you plan on attacking with both weapons, or if not using both, which one you are planning on using. so lets say you decide to use just the long sword or just the short sword. for your turn, you attack with the long sword, not incurring any TWF penalties. this also means that until your next turn, any AoO require you to use the chosen weapon. basically we are saying you are holding the other sword, but not ready to attack with it (also means that Feats such as Two Weapon Defense or magical abilities such as Defending on your other sword dont apply during this round). now lets say you decide to WEILD both weapons during your action. all attacks during your turn now take the penalties associated with TWF, but this also allows you to gain any special effects due to the off-hand weapon (such as the feats or magical abilities, etc). this also means you may make AoO with either weapon during the round. not sure if it is 100% by the rules, but it works for us. as to the original question about CDG, if both weapons are active (for lack of a better word), then yes you take the TWF penalties. but if you are doing a CDG on someone, an extra -2 or -4 to hit shouldnt be too much of an issue. if it is, you are fighting something you shouldnt be anyways :) and like i stated in my earlier post, the CDG rule on using only one weapon is not very realistic in all cases.
Thorak 12-07-04, 01:08 PM	That's all you needed to say. My point being; it doesn't need to be in the rules. Any more than the rules need to say "to breathe, your character must inflate their lungs, and then deflate them, constantly". That's what the word means. And so, if you're wielding a greatsword and armor spikes, do you always take those TWF penalties? Or are you "holding" the armor spikes and not wielding them? Exactly. The same way you can hold a shield without wielding it. You're getting hung up on the terminology; I could also say it's "wield" and "not-wield". All that matters is that "wield" is defined as an active thing, so if you're not actively trying to hit someone with the weapon, or use it in some way, you're not "wielding" it by any definition of the word. Even if it's in your hand. If you're a monk wielding a greatsword, do you always take TWF penalties? Or are you "holding" your unarmed strike and not wielding it? See above. Do you see how inconsistent your position is? It's much more consistent to interpret the phrase "fighting this way" in the TWF rules as "when you make an extra attack with that off-hand weapon." This clears up the inconsistency and it doesn't send us to the dictionary to find out what the word "wield" means. And it doesn't make every monk take a TWF penalty whenever he uses a manufactured weapon. If by "inconsistent" you mean "using the only definition of 'wield' there is", then sure. If you don't know what the word means, that's not my fault. The game designers assumed the readers either understood English, or would look the word up if they were confused. And you're grossly misquoting me. My stance is that you're not required to take the TWF penalty unless you're actively using the weapon, as opposed to passively holding onto it. But if you are actively wielding the second weapon, you do take the penalties, regardless of whether you actually are going to make an attack. My stance isn't inconsistent. You're not understanding it, as is evident by the points you're raising which my stance in no way suggests would be issues.
Ipsissimus 12-07-04, 02:55 PM	This is why I carry a pick with me for the 4x multipler...but seriously. The rules are guidelines for you game, if something doesn't fit your game change it but remember that it shouldn't be only favorable to you. The enemy must (should) be able to have access to the same rules. How would we use TWF and CoupDG in our campaign? We wouldn't but if we did, the off handed attack would not be a critical hit. It's almost better to just full attack someone who is helpless, the only drawback there is a chance you could miss as well as the target does not need to make a fortitude save. So, if you would allow TWF as part of a CoupDG, would you also allow ITWF? how about a CoupDG Flurry of blows + TWF + ITWF + Natural Attack? Seems kinda of ridiculous, why not just full attack the guy. There's a bunch of rules I don't agree with but for the sake a balance we abide by them and so far we're still having fun.
Zherog 12-07-04, 04:33 PM	The whole Coup de Grace with a single weapon is a thing our party rogue realized in the campaign's second battle- he could either get an automatic crit and single sneak attack, dealing 5d6 with his rapier, And, at that point, forcing the target to succeed at a Fortitude saving throw with a DC equal to 10 + the damage dealt. Also, if you deal over 50, you force a second saving throw for massive damage. In the case of your rogue, the average fort save you are forcing on your coup is 27. If you're getting 5d6 with a rapier then it sounds as though you would be talking about a 3rd level rogue. A 27 seems like a pretty damn high save DC for CR 3 critters. The highest fort saves I could find on a quick look at the SRD for a CR 3 critter was +9 - a gelatinous cube (which is immune to the effect anyway) and unicorn (avg HP 42). Critters with a +8 include a Deinonychus (avg HP 34) and werewolf (avg HP 20). Seems like a good deal to me. You just about outright kill the werewolf with HP damage, and you have a damn good chance to defeat every other critter of CR 3 with the fortitude save.
Mirtek 12-08-04, 07:40 AM	You do not gain TWF penalties until you actually use the second weapon. If your wielding a longsword/dagger and only strike with the longsword, you don't gain a penalty. If you want to strike with both you have to declare before your first attack, as then the TWF penatly applies to all attacks this rounds. AFIR the FAQ specifially states that only attacking with TW causes the penalty, not wielding two weapons, but I don't want to check right now.
Thorak 12-08-04, 08:49 AM	You do not gain TWF penalties until you actually use the second weapon. If your wielding a longsword/dagger and only strike with the longsword, you don't gain a penalty. If you want to strike with both you have to declare before your first attack, as then the TWF penatly applies to all attacks this rounds. AFIR the FAQ specifially states that only attacking with TW causes the penalty, not wielding two weapons, but I don't want to check right now. Again, this raises issues with what causes the penalty you've taken if circumstances dictate you never make those attacks. If you mean you have to declare intent to have the weapon ready to make the attacks, because that's what you intend to do, then you're declaring that you're wielding both weapons. If you're only going to attack with the longsword this round, you're no longer wielding the shortsword, even if it's still in your hand. Wield != hold. Wield is a term applied to active use only. If you're not actively trying or ready to hit someone with it, you're not wielding it.